Get PRB E-mail News

Behind the Numbers: The PRB blog on population, health, and the environment

The PRB blog on population, health, and the environment

Authors

What’s Changed (or Not) for Women Since the First International Women’s Day 100 Years Ago?

March 3rd, 2011 | Posted in Gender

by Karin Ringheim, senior policy advisor

PRB is celebrating the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day with the launch of The World’s Women and Girls 2011 Data Sheet. Find more materials on PRB’s website.

March 8, 2011, is the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day. It is hard to imagine that just 100 years ago, in 1911, women in the United States were still nine years shy of getting the vote. The women’s suffrage movement was going strong, and women in Wyoming had had the vote since Wyoming achieved statehood in 1890, but it was not until the 19th Amendment to the Constitution that women throughout the United States were finally afforded the right to vote in 1920.    

In 1911, the U.S. population was 92 million, less than one-third of its current size of about 310 million. Life expectancy was 54 years for women and 51 for men. The leading cause of death, after heart disease, was tuberculosis. And 1 in10 children died before his or her first birthday. Our U.S. statistics of 100 years ago are much like those of sub-Saharan Africa today. 

In 1911, the global population was 1.8 billion, and today it has nearly quadrupled to 7 billion. Sub-Saharan Africa remains the fastest growing region of the world and 42 percent of women in the region are under the age of 15 (compared with 19 percent in the United States). These young women will soon enter their reproductive years, and at current reproductive rates, the region’s population is expected to double in just 30 years. Women in sub-Saharan Africa give birth to an average of 5.2 children each, in comparison to U.S. women who today have an average of 2 children each. 

In 1911,  men in the United States were five times as likely as women to be gainfully employed.  And child labor was common: 26 percent of boys and 10 percent of girls ages 10 to 15 were employed as “breadwinners.”  Based on the higher levels of employment among boys, perhaps it is not surprising that three times as many girls as boys were enrolled in school. In 1911, U.S. women were more likely to have graduated from high school than men, but less than one-third of college graduates were women. Today, women outnumber men on college campuses in the United States. In developing countries, great strides have been made in girls’ education at the primary level, but less so at the secondary level. Sub-Saharan Africa lags behind the rest of the world, with only 34 percent of women enrolled in secondary school, and a far smaller percentage enrolled in college or professional schooling beyond high school.  

Nearly half of all wage earners in the United States are women, but among full time workers, they earn only 80 percent of what men earn. Women in the United States hold only 17 percent of public office seats at the federal level, far lower than in most regions of the world, and even slightly lower than in sub-Saharan Africa, where women hold 18 percent of parliamentary seats. 

By 1911, women in the United States had, on average, only 3.4 births each. How this was accomplished in the absence of widespread availability of birth control is not entirely clear, but condoms were available, as were “traditional” methods – withdrawal and periodic abstinence. The diaphragm, the first manufactured contraceptive method for women, was not widely known or available at that time because the federal Comstock Laws of 1873 made it illegal to send any “obscene, lewd, and/or lascivious” materials through the mail, including contraceptive devices and information.  The Comstock Laws as they affected the sale and distribution of contraception were not overturned until 1936. By 1940, a third of all U.S. women used a diaphragm for contraception. Today, 79 percent of American women use a method of contraception, compared with only 23 percent of women in sub-Saharan Africa. Few women on either continent rely on a diaphragm, despite its demonstrated safety and efficacy, even in low resource settings. 

While women in the United States clearly have some distance to go before gender equality is fully achieved, we can count many blessings. Virtually all U.S. women have skilled personnel attending them at birth, compared with only 46 percent of women in sub-Saharan Africa. As a consequence of discrepancies in access to healthcare, a woman in sub-Saharan Africa has a 1 in 31 lifetime risk of dying of causes related to pregnancy and delivery, while a U.S. woman faces a 1 in 2,100 lifetime risk. Three U.S. women in 1,000 are infected with HIV as compared with 68 per 1,000 women in sub-Saharan Africa, where 76 percent of all HIV-positive women in the world reside. In the region, 13 women become infected for every 10 men, and despite the assistance provided by the United States and other countries, the majority do not receive life-extending treatment.

Most of these recent statistics and many others can be found in PRB’s new datasheet, The World’s Women and Girls, 2011, published to commemorate this landmark anniversary of International Women’s Day. Given the resources, technologies, and a commitment to a world free of poverty, women in sub-Saharan Africa should not be forced to wait another 100 years before achieving the benefits that women in the developed world already enjoy. Nor should women in the United States require another century to gain social and economic equality. Happy International Women’s Day!


You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

3 Responses to “What’s Changed (or Not) for Women Since the First International Women’s Day 100 Years Ago?”

  1. Karin, wonderful artical!! I had the absolute pleasure of joining my mother and a million other women in the ‘Million Women’s March’. I will always cherish that fantastic experience.

  2. karin Ringheim Says:

    Thank you Courtney. I’m glad you participated in the Million Women’s March. Perhaps more such marches are needed to help women “go the distance” to full equality.

  3. In search of science leading to the restoration of balance and sustainability……

    Where are the experts? A deafening silence has vanquished science when it really matters. We are witnessing crimes against science and humanity, I suppose.

    Would professionals with appropriate expertise please examine the extant science regarding human population dynamics and human overpopulation of Earth? How can this knowledge be used to move the human community from the dangerous and patently unsustainable ‘trajectory’ it is on now to sustainable lifestyles and right-sized corporate enterprises?

    http://newsecuritybeat.blogspot.com/2010/08/uk-royal-society-call-for-submissions.html#comment-form

    —–Original Message—–
    Sir John Sulston, Chair
    People and the Planet Working Group
    UK Royal Society
    March 31, 2011

    Dear Sir John Sulston:

    Your recent comments regarding the review of research on the human population and its impact on the planet we inhabit by a high level panel of experts give rise to hope for the future of children everywhere. Thanks for all you, the Planet and the People Working Group and the UK Royal Society are doing to protect biodiversity from massive extirpation, the environment from irreversible degradation and the Earth from wanton dissipation of its finite resources by the human species. I am especially appreciative for two quotes from you,

    …… “we’ve got to make sure that population is recognized… as a multiplier of many others. We’ve got to make sure that population really does peak out when we hope it will.”

    …….”what we want to do is to see the issue of population in the open, dispassionately discussed…. and then we’ll see where it goes.”

    Inasmuch as you and an esteemed group of professionals with appropriate expertise are examining scientific evidence regarding the unbridled increase of absolute global human population numbers, please note there is research that has been summarily dismissed by many too many of our colleagues regarding human population dynamics and human overpopulation which I would like to bring to your attention. For the past ten years I have been unsuccessfully attempting to draw attention to certain evidence that to date remains both unchallenged and ignored by virtually every top-rank professional. They appear unable to refute the evidence and simultaneously unwilling to believe it. Their unexpected conspiracy of silence has served to conceal certain research by David Pimentel and Russell Hopfenberg. How else can it be that so many established professionals with adequate expertise act as if they are willfully blind, hysterically deaf and electively mute in the face of scientific evidence of human population dynamics and human overpopulation? The conscious denial of what could somehow be real about the growth of the human population in our time is not doing anything that can be construed as somehow right and good for future human wellbeing and environmental health, I suppose. It appears as if we could be witnesses to the most colossal failure of intellectual honesty, moral courage and nerve in human history.

    Peer-reviewed professional publications, letters to the editor, slideshow presentations et cetera can be found at the following link, http://www.panearth.org/

    Thank you for attending to this request for careful, skillful and rigorous scrutiny of research from two outstanding scientists. Please know I am holding onto a ray of hope that the research of Hopfenberg and Pimentel is fundamentally flawed; that human population dynamics is different from, not essentially similar to, the population dynamics of other species; and that human population numbers are not primarily a function of an available supply of food necessary for human existence. That would be the best news.

    Sometime soon, I trust, many scientists will speak up with regard to apparently unforeseen and unfortunately unwelcome science of human population dynamics and human overpopulation the way people in huge numbers in the Mid-East are calling out for democracy now.

    Respectfully yours,

    Steve Salmony

    Steven Earl Salmony
    AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
    Established 2001
    http://sustainabilityscience.org/content.html?contentid=1176
    http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

Leave a Reply

Security Code:



Services: Get E-Mail News  ·  Join/Renew Membership  ·  Donate  ·  Bookstore  ·  Contact  ·  Español  ·  Français
Copyright 2007, Population Reference Bureau. All rights reserved. • Privacy Policy
1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW • Suite 520 • Washington, DC 20009-5728 • USA
Phone: 800-877-9881 • Fax: 202-328-3937 • E-mail: popref@prb.org